Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Three — Paradise

QUESTION I. Whether it was a true and natural tree, and whether only one

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. Whether it was a true and natural tree, and whether only one.1

QUAESTIO I. An fuerit illa vera et naturalis Arbor, et an una tantum.

DE ARBORE vitae dictum est: proxime sequitur Arbor scientiae boni et mali, pauciorum quaestionum et facilioris explicationis, illaque in primis obvia quaestione, an fuerit corporea et terrestris arbor—negantibus id quibusdam propter scientiam boni et mali, quem effectum ipsius nulli corporearum arborum convenientem esse...
Concerning the Tree of life it has been said: next follows the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of fewer questions and easier explanation—and first of all with that obvious question, whether it was a corporeal and terrestrial tree—certain ones denying this, on account of the "knowledge of good and evil," which effect of it, [they say,] being suited to no one of the corporeal trees, to be...2
...[quem effectum ipsius, nulli corporearum arborum convenientem,] esse putaverunt. Sed perpendentibus verba Mosis, non potest esse in dubio eam fuisse naturalem et corpoream arborem: ut quam Moses ceteris arboribus ex humo generatis et in Paradiso consitis annumeravit. Deus quoque eius esu homini mortem comminatus interdixit: ergo ferebat fructus qui poterant ab homine comedi. Eva item aspiciens arborem aspectu pulchram, fructumque eius ad vescendum suavem, decerpsit, comedit, viroque suo dedit comedendum. Neque vero cognominata est arbor scientiae boni et mali quod eum haberet effectum, ut fructum suum comedentes boni et mali scientes faceret, sed ob alias causas paulo infra exponendas. Illud etiam fit mihi admodum verisimile, unicam duntaxat fuisse eam arborem: nam et una sat erat consilio et proposito Dei, volentis per eam probare hominis obedientiam; et ubicumque Scriptura eam nominat, singulari numero eam appellat; necnon et interdictio eius ad Adamum et Evam tantum pertinebat, et in una numero arbore continebatur.
...they thought [that effect of it—the knowledge of good and evil—suited to no one of the corporeal trees—] to be [an argument that it was not corporeal]. But to those weighing the words of Moses, it cannot be in doubt that it was a natural and corporeal tree: inasmuch as Moses numbered it with the other trees generated from the soil and planted in Paradise. God too, threatening man with death, forbade the eating of it: therefore it bore fruits which could be eaten by man. Eve likewise, looking at the tree beautiful in aspect, and its fruit sweet to eat, plucked, ate, and gave it to her husband to eat. Nor indeed was it surnamed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it had this effect, that it made those eating its fruit knowers of good and evil, but for other causes to be set forth a little below. This also becomes to me quite probable, that there was only one such tree: for one was enough for the counsel and purpose of God, who wished to prove man's obedience through it; and wherever Scripture names it, it calls it in the singular number; and the prohibition of it pertained only to Adam and Eve, and was contained in one tree in number.3

Translator’s notes

  1. The first question on the tree of knowledge: was it a real, natural (corporeal, earthly) tree, and was there only one of it? ↩
  2. Marginal gloss: "Arborem scientiae boni et mali fuisse corpoream, et unam numero." The tree of life is finished; next the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of fewer and easier questions—first the obvious one: was it a corporeal, earthly tree? **Some deny it**, on account of the "knowledge of good and evil"—an effect they say suits no corporeal tree (the start of the objection Pererius will rebut). Breaks mid-sentence (catchword "esse"; signature S3). Resume PDF 367 with "...esse..." continuing the objection and Pererius's reply. ↩
  3. Conclusion of QUAESTIO I (from p.325), rebutting the allegorists. Against their denial: weighing Moses's words, the tree of knowledge was certainly a real, corporeal tree—numbered among the soil-grown trees, forbidden under threat of death (so it bore edible fruit), and seen by Eve as beautiful with sweet fruit, plucked and shared. It was NOT named "of the knowledge of good and evil" because it *made* eaters know good and evil, but for other reasons (below). Pererius also finds it probable there was only **one** such tree: one sufficed for God's purpose of testing obedience, Scripture always names it in the singular, and the prohibition concerned only Adam, Eve, and one tree. ↩